Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

No, that's not an external force. Gravity, for example, would be an external force for a rocket. The propellant contained in the rocket, and sharing its velocity state and mechanically coupled to it, is part of the rocket system. Since you were asked twice to address the refutation of your video, and you have declined both times to do so, can we agree that you have no rejoinder for the refutation and cannot rehabilitate the claims your video makes?

Do you have a simple experiment to show what you say is true. I have already shown that there is no equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force. Now it is your turn provide evidence

Do you have a simple experiment to show what you say is true. I have already shown that there is no equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force. Now it is your turn provide evidence

*Very slowly* Then how do rockets go into space? Magic? It's all a ruse and there is no space?

Answer the question.

__________________- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

There is a clear explanation of why Newton’s third law doesn’t apply like it does for pushing and pulling for gas movement due to pressure gradient force

OK, but have you got any Brie?

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

People always rationalize. Even Christians, who put their faith in front of the reason, do rationalize. They do believe because something happened to them. They will explain it in length. It's never 'I believe, because I believe'.
Same with these woo fighters. Sure there are some which are clearly doing it for profit and do not actually believe a word of it. But lots of them do actually believe. And they will use formulas and models. They will use all tools of the science .. except skepticism.
Add Dunning-Kruger effect to the mix, and these people are bound to happen. Everybody is going through the phase of overestimating his knowledge. It's just a matter of how fast he will realize his error.

I can barely believe that a person can so willfully ignorant about basic concepts and the results of well established facts.

Exercises like this are rarely about establishing correct fact, and more often about establishing the speaker as a respectable, if not superior, purveyor of fact and insight. It usually comes down to a fantasy construct where the speaker is an authority and the audience are sheep. This is why you don't see him addressing the questions that dissolve the foundation of that construct. We, the sheeple, believe in NASA and space travel, but he who is more enlightened has seen through the sham.

Quote:

After all, rockets have been successfully operating in the vacuum of space for well over 60 years now.

I infer from his other comments that he does not believe this to be the case, but he has avoided direct questions asking to what extent he believes space travel to be fake. Generally if someone avoids answering a question, you can reasonably conclude the truthful answer is the one least favorable to his claims. I gather therefrom that he doesn't want to bear the stigma of being a large-scale denier of fact.

Quote:

In fact, if rockets could not operate in the vacuum of space, then it would not have been possible for the Apollo astronauts to go to the Moon and back in 1969 (plus a few more times after that).

To be honest, if he believes the Apollo missions were real but rockets are impossible, I'd have a slight but grudging respect for him. Not many people can achieve that level of doublethink.

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Indeed he's been asked several times whether he believes any space travel is authentic, and if not then how are certain things accomplished that appear to be the result of functional spacefaring. The inability to explain the evident consequents of an antecedent one means to refute is a failure of the refutation.

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Agreed, yet I know some who have. There was a UFO author in the UK many years ago who simultaneously claimed the Apollo missions were faked, but also that the astronauts found evidence of aliens on the Moon. He was entirely serious and didn't see why that should be considered a contradictory position.

Because you didnít watch it. There is a clear explanation of why Newtonís third law doesnít apply like it does for pushing and pulling for gas movement due to pressure gradient force

And the explanation is clearly wrong
Newton's 3rd law is universal.

Or are you suggesting that hundreds of satellites (which have manoeuvring thrusters) don't work ? Or that we never landed on the moon ? (the Apollo missions made multiple mid-range manoeuvres using rockets).

C'mon all you science guys! There is a video! This trumps all of your sciencey mumbo jumbo.

This very much reminds me of:

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

My see-saw analogy renders any need for "calculations" moot.

Unless you don't believe in gravity.

Originally Posted by Armitage72

A sock puppet of someone who really misses the Stundies and is trying to bring them back singlehandedly?

See above.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

The "NASA" rocket equation? I thought it was the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation.

Oh, I get it.... Tsiolkovsky was "in on it", a NASA shill, 62 years before NASA was even established.

Thank you for repeating this. When I skimmed the thread above, I really thought that the rockets might have something to do with the 1812 Overture. TSIOL, TSIOL-kovsky. Got it. Not that other guy. I learned a new thing today.

Originally Posted by Gingervytes

Lets say a 75kg person lifts a 100kg weight and he drops it from a height. Why doesnít that person get lifted off the ground? Isnít the weight mass?

Stundie, is that you?

Originally Posted by Gingervytes

You know what I meant. Solid chunk is one piece. You could just say a piece of solid. Iím sorry that your English is weak

Before parking meters went digital, it used to be common for someone to ask you for a "solid quarter" for the parking meter. Many of us noted that all quarters are indeed solid.

I'm sure you agree with me in doubting that you'll ever get a substantive response to your questions. He doesn't have them, and he knows he doesn't. The dynamics of disorganized public debate have given him a linguistic McGuffin to chew on now instead of defending his ignorant view of Newtonian physics. That way he can pretend to be actively engaged without being required to address the hard questions.

Agreed, yet I know some who have. There was a UFO author in the UK many years ago who simultaneously claimed the Apollo missions were faked, but also that the astronauts found evidence of aliens on the Moon. He was entirely serious and didn't see why that should be considered a contradictory position.

That is clearly a variation of this:

Quote:

After years of searching, the expedition ended. An investigator explained:

"We have concluded that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist, and anyway, it ate our boats."

Indeed he's been asked several times whether he believes any space travel is authentic, and if not then how are certain things accomplished that appear to be the result of functional spacefaring. The inability to explain the evident consequents of an antecedent one means to refute is a failure of the refutation.

This rather suggests that he thinks itís a hoax:

Originally Posted by Gingervytes

Do they go into space. Every rocket launch it looks like it went into the ocean

Unless, I suppose, he claims that space flight has been using some other form of propulsion.

__________________"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Because you didn’t watch it. There is a clear explanation of why Newton’s third law doesn’t apply like it does for pushing and pulling for gas movement due to pressure gradient force

The video and you are clearly wrong. Newtons law does not depend on the surrounding fluid/lack of fluid.
Consider a simple experiment.
You have a container that has one and only one opening and you put some mass that has pressure. The pressure is greater than the fluid around the container and is contained in every direction by the container with the exception of the opening. The pressure F= ma will exert that force in all directions except the opening has no confinement. The resulting net force in the opposite direction of that opening will result in the container being accelerated in the opposite direction, regardless of what is around the container.
As Jay sts60 have pointed out to you have failed to present a case that disproves Newton. Your video does not.

If the Camembert is runny enough, of course, it'll follow the laws of fluid dynamics. So throwing bits of cheddar backwards makes a rocket move forward, but throwing bits of Camembert will only work if hasn't been left out in the sun. And the cat hasn't eaten it.

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Indeed he's been asked several times whether he believes any space travel is authentic, and if not then how are certain things accomplished that appear to be the result of functional spacefaring. The inability to explain the evident consequents of an antecedent one means to refute is a failure of the refutation.

I donít think space travel exists, but who know what other technology is out there. By they certainly do no go into space with rockets

I donít think space travel exists, but who know what other technology is out there. By they certainly do no go into space with rockets

Then you are wrong on a level that makes it not worth discussing anything with you.

__________________- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

And it was explained in detail how it was wrong. One of his critics helpfully showed how the video wrongly portrayed certain scenarios as systems in which Newtonian conservation of momentum should be conserved, and misstated how conservation should be evinced in the cases where momentum applied. He claimed he had addressed the refutation, but cannot show us where; he merely restated the belief that the refutation disputed. Then he demanded a "demonstration." A claimant does not get to insist upon only one of several valid forms of rebuttal; it is perfectly valid to show that the claim is based on an incorrect premise.

The video and you are clearly wrong. Newtons law does not depend on the surrounding fluid/lack of fluid.
Consider a simple experiment.
You have a container that has one and only one opening and you put some mass that has pressure. The pressure is greater than the fluid around the container and is contained in every direction by the container with the exception of the opening. The pressure F= ma will exert that force in all directions the opening has no confinement. The resulting net force in the opposite direction of that opening will result in the container being accelerated in the opposite direction, regardless of what is around the container.
As Jay sts60 have pointed out to you have failed to present a case that disproves Newton. Your video does not.

The video and you are clearly wrong. Newtons law does not depend on the surrounding fluid/lack of fluid.
Consider a simple experiment.
You have a container that has one and only one opening and you put some mass that has pressure. The pressure is greater than the fluid around the container and is contained in every direction by the container with the exception of the opening. The pressure F= ma will exert that force in all directions the opening has no confinement. The resulting net force in the opposite direction of that opening will result in the container being accelerated in the opposite direction, regardless of what is around the container.
As Jay sts60 have pointed out to you have failed to present a case that disproves Newton. Your video does not.

For a real world test, just squirt a garden hose under high pressure and feel the kickback.

But the OP is basically saying you can't do a push up against the air, I take it. You need resistance in the form of the ground, or in the case of a rocket, matter for the gas to push against. How to explain within that self imposed parameter that resistance is not needed?

__________________"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet

__________________- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Yes and from the blackness of accelerating in that vacuum, just watch any current launch. It is to bad these little cameras weren't produced in the 60's-70's to watched the SIV-4 acerbating from the Earth on the way to the Moon.

Yes and from the blackness of accelerating in that vacuum, just watch any current launch. It is to bad these little cameras weren't produced in the 60's-70's to watched the SIV-4 acerbating from the Earth on the way to the Moon.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.